1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, a company operating a multi-family housing management business, concluded a consignment management contract with A commercial building (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) (hereinafter referred to as “A commercial building”).

B. B asserted that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed while serving as the Director of the Management Office of the above commercial building, and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Defendant.

On November 11, 2015, the Defendant issued a remedy order to the Plaintiff stating that “The dismissal of the Plaintiff’s worker B on September 11, 2015 is unfair dismissal, and thus, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication, the Defendant would return B to the original position and pay the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the Plaintiff had worked normally during the period of dismissal” (hereinafter “instant remedy order”).

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant remedy order by January 15, 2016, which was the deadline for the performance of the instant remedy order. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant given a prior notice of imposition of enforcement fines to the Plaintiff.

On February 29, 2016, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 9.6 million on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 33 of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant remedy order by the deadline for its implementation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and the relevant laws and regulations.

On the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) Since an employment contract was not concluded between the Plaintiff and B, the Plaintiff does not dismiss B. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was unfair dismissal of B is unlawful. 2) The Plaintiff is from the shopping district management body.